In Adler's view, "Releasing these peddlers of death and turning America into a buzzed 'udopia' is a slap in law enforcement's face." He complains that the White House's "scorecard" of the 46 prisoners doesn't take into account "the drugs involved and the weight," which is only half true, as the White House's press release clearly names the drugs and specific crimes which led to a conviction.

Drug traffickers are by necessity violent. Their crimes yield death in the form of overdoses, street crimes by users who need money to buy drugs, and bullets sprayed in turf battles.

According to their website, FLEOA "represents more than 25,000 federal law enforcement officers from over 65 different agencies" and "and is frequently called upon to provide testimony at congressional hearings."

Of the 46 prisoners whose sentences were commuted today, 14 were sentenced to life (although one individual had his life sentenced amended to 293 months, or roughly 24 ½ years, in March). All of the prisoners were sentenced for a nonviolent drug offense, but the majority were convicted of a crack/cocaine offense. Two individuals, Jerome Johnson and John Wyatt, were convicted of only marijuana offenses.

Adler might claim to speak for law enforcement when making hyperbolic pronouncements about the president's long overdue and extremely limited act of mercy for 46 people suffering through draconian prison terms, but the law enforcement community is hardly a monolith when it comes to drug prohibition.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

So, on the one hand, when called on arresting people who pose no threat to society, the cops say they’re just doing their jobs and don’t have any choice in the matter. On the other hand, if we actually try to change the law or use legal means to free some of these people, it’s patently offensive to the police.

Methinks they actually support the laws and just don’t want to take responsibility for that fact.

That and growing numbers of LEOs are the primary objectives of a LEO union.

This pig cares not one whit about justice nor does he care about people who suffer from drug addiction and the WoD. What he does care about is the number of dues-paying members.

Of course, his dues-paying piggies want to think they are the good guys just like on TV, despite the fact that their chosen profession involves ruining the lives of many people for no good reason. So their union boss thought it useful to criticize Obama’s token act of justice.

They’re *paid liars*. Have you ever spoken to a cop, or watched them give a lecture, especially about how they extract confessions from people? You have to see the look that comes on their face when they talk about “outsmarting” idiot criminals and getting them to give themselves up. It’s…fiendishly gleeful. Nasty. And you know what they do that gives them that look? They lie. They *love* lying to people and fooling them. Love it.

My father was a probation officer and he was always exasperated that so many of his clients would keep falling for the cops’ line that “just tell us the truth about what happened so we can help you avoid trouble”.

He’d complain that the dumb fucks were on probation in the first place because they told the cops what happened and they immediately used it against them to get the initial charges to stick.

Quote from George “Holy War” Bush at a Republican Party Fundraising Dinner in New York July 24, 1990: “And Republicans ? and this is a big one nationally ? Republicans want murderers and drug kingpins to pay the ultimate penalty, and liberal Democrats don’t. In Washington, we argue that those who sell drugs are selling death, and we propose that drug kingpins reap what they sow.” (Bush, 1991 Book II 1063-1064) Presidential Papers are often searchable online.

I found another death sentence for victimless crimes from George Daddy Bush in Billings Montana, July 20, 1990: “And when I say fast ? we need habeas corpus reforms to stop the frivolous appeals that are choking our courts. And final ? I’m talking about fair and constitutionally sound death penalty provisions for these major traffickers.” Papers of the Presidents (Bush, 1991 Book II 1036-8) But this is pro-life because it’s Christian: “Thank you and God bless each and every one of you.” (Bush, 1991 Book II 1040)

Not because there is a nationwide gang of heavily armed pseudo-soldiers eagerly chomping at the pit to fill them full of lead. Oh no, they’re just violent because FYTW. If it were legal to sell what they’re peddling they’d still run around spraying bullets indiscriminately, because they’re violent just for the sake of being violent!

I think it’s the combination of dumbass sloganeering and the actual power of Federal law enforcement. The latter would be exasperating in and of itself, but the “12 year olds thought this looked cool” nature of the logo is mind-bending when you think that the people who wield that level of power actually probably think on this level. They are the Good Guys, who fight the Bad Guys, who want to do Bad Guy Stuff, because they are Bad Guys. The Good Guys need to fight them because Bad Guy Stuff is Bad and Hurts America.

They don’t have good intentions. At all. This guy is a sadist and an authoritarian (as long as he holds the authority). He’ll say anything, no matter how hyperbolic, if it will fool people into giving him and his ilk more power, or at least not taking away what they already have.

I do think that many of the most ardent drug warriors really do believe that they are doing a great good for society. I also agree that most of the foot soldiers don’t give a shit beyond having an excuse to play war against those they pledged to serve and protect.

The only “good” that I would agree that they think they are doing is the “good” (from their perspective) of controlling people. They’ll say it’s for your own good, but that erection in their pants belies that.

These people don’t actually give a shit about “improving society”. If they did, they’d look at the results of their “solutions” and think again. They don’t because the results are exactly what they want: power and control and authority…for them.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

I think you give them too much credit for consistency. The greatest evil is often done with good intentions. I’m sure they do want control and power. But they think that society will fall apart if some right thinking person isn’t in control.

By “good” a lot of people mean altruistic, as in seizing other people’s money to have still other people with guns kill some other people with grass. It’s all about helping others, especially the officer next to them, never themselves… that’d be evil.

It’s a phrase coined by Groundkeeper Willie on the Simpsons. It’s just a series of words that can be construed as being insulting to the French. It actually makes little to no sense, thereby it should probably be given my Latte Award from below. I’ll just rescind Nicole’s and give it to Willie.

I start steaming whenever some statist complains about the predictable and predicted result of handing the state more authoriteh. I don’t mind so much when it’s naive gullible little college trotskyites who haven’t been exposed to much reality yet, but along about the tenth time they are disillusioned in some predictable and predicted fashion, they need to grow up and start using their brain’s memorization and correlation function. That’s what brains do best: find patterns, and they are ignorant dumbkoffs when they willfully ignore the pattern detectors.

Picture yourself a politician or jackbooted minion. A customs grunt clicks his heels and salutes: “We just confiscated a billion dollars worth of blow for you, Senator (or Czar). Shall we pack it into your convoy of limos?” Now, do you really want to listen to any whiney jailbirds complaining about harsh prohibition laws?

Hey bud, your title is Law Enforcement, not Law Maker. Law Maker is reserved for me, the public, as expressed through legislation and the Constitution, of which I am at least nominally represented. Your job has nothing to do with making laws.

That’s about what i want to say whenever I hear cops lobbying for or against particular legislation or policy. Your job is to enforce the laws that exist. The purpose of criminal law isn’t to make the police’s job easier, safer or more exciting.

We used to count black Americans as 3/5 of a person. For reparations, give them 5/3 of a vote.

What.

That’s because the problem is almost unfathomably large. In a report titled “The Unfinished March,” the Economic Policy Institute found that school segregation, black unemployment, lack of access to fair housing and living wages, and abysmal African American household wealth remain at essentially the same levels of disparity today as they did in 1963, when the March on Washington occurred.

And this is despite massive programs which were supposed to address that problem. Kind of makes me think that social programs don’t actually work, huh?

Whatever though, I’m sure making a black person’s vote count almost twice as much as a white person’s will fix the problem.

Do they not know the difference between black people and slaves? I mean, I’m down with giving slaves 5/3 of a vote each, I guess. Or, I mean, counting them as 5/3 of a person for Congressional representation, giving their masters more of a say over…fuck, this is getting more complicated than I thought!

The even funnier part is that people like this continuously misinterpret what the 3/5ths compromise was.

The FREE STATES wanted slaves to count for less and the SLAVE STATES wanted them to count for more. So if they’d been counted as 1 person for the purposes of apportionment, that would have been a victory for slavers.

It would have actually been better if they were counted as 0 people because that allowed slave owners to gain even more political power in congress.

While this is an uglier objection, I still have to point out: according to his narrative, we need to give more electoral power to unemployed, uneducated, segregated citizens. An interesting spin on democratic theory.

Oh, good. I always love the willful ignorance of what the 3/5ths compromise was actually about. Surely someone has explained to these people that counting slaves as a whole person would have had the effect of giving more political power to slave owners.

Let’s extend this logic to Indians. Since they were counted as zero for representation, let’s give them all infinitely many votes.

Dude, you have to understand how stupid these people are. As soon as they hear “3/5”, instead of going “that’s a weird number, why would anyone do that, let alone give slaves votes?”, they go “they only treated slaves as 3/5 of a person for voting purposes, ah ha, I can get righteously indignant about this instead of actually understanding *why*!” The funny thing is they are getting indignant about something that would have actually been giving slaves more than their real voting power: which was zero.

All of the violent activities related to drugs that occur throughout the United States are completely attributable to the prohibition of those drugs. Instead of legalizing their manufacture, sale, and usage, however, entire spheres of government are erected to conduct totalitarian warfare upon the citizenry in nominal service to some retarded, nebulous notion of societal security and safety. Every law enforcement officer salaried to enforce prohibition is an unequivocal, shameless, and degenerate parasite. The utmostly effective remedy to their barbarism, short of legalization, is to instill a culture of individualistic resistance to their authority, and to remain armed as commonly as possible. Fuck the police, fuck the governmental authorities that grant them their despicable powers, and fuck the prohibitionist slavers who consistently demonstrate their pants-shitting dedication to the death of the Republic in the name of their puritanical utopia.

I routinely read papers from 100 years ago, and only the infrequent Tong Wars that arose from opium seizures for tariff evasion are anything like “drug related violence.” I have seen a few stories of people deliberately using legal morphine for suicide (instead of silver polish).

Moore’s son, Sowande Ajumoke Omokunde, aged 26, was arrested in connection with the November 2, 2004 (Election Day) tire-slashing of Republican party vehicles in Milwaukee. He was charged with a felony in connection with the event on January 24, 2005, but agreed, on January 20, 2006, to plead no contest in exchange for a sentencing recommendation of restitution and probation. On April 26, 2006, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Michael Brennan sentenced Omokunde to serve four months in prison and to pay $2,305 in fines and restitution. In response, Moore said, “I love my son very much. I’m very proud of him. He’s accepted responsibility.”

Moore cited Walker’s requirements to show a photo ID to vote and take a drug test to receive welfare and his opposition to raising the minimum wage.

Reminds me of the black=slave idea above. The low opinion they have of the entire group is appalling. African Americans are incapable of getting a photo ID, staying off drugs, and they can’t earn more than minimum wage without the government helping them.

Traffickers are by necessity violent. Go figure. Oh, you said drug traffickers. So, we end prohibition, and we will still have drug traffickers, much as we currently have food traffickers, drink traffickers, clothing traffickers, and so forth. The difference being, I guess, that drug traffickers are special, being by necessity violent and all. Making a lot of sense, there, chief.

Aaaand, if you make them NOT criminal, then… oh, never mind. This is logic from the guy who thinks lions belong in jail too, apparently. Because god knows, they can possibly be dangerous if we force them to be, so that must mean they’re criminal, right?

The problem is these people in law enforcement and the goverment organs that create the laws is that they have a vested psychological and financial stake in maintaining and expanding their influence. They have the very human need to be right and of value. The problem is they are trying to enforce subjective laws using force and threat of force. That is a quite different situation than enforcing objective laws such as protecting people’s earned values and their right to live without force being initiated against them by someone else. It is the old protecting one from one’s self. It undermines an individual’s right to self determination. If one wants to destroy ones self with drugs, that may be immensely stupid but should not involve the initiation of force by others to achieve the end point of protecting the stupid. Would it not be far more productive and positive to offer therapy if the addict desires it? This whole situation make for a very ‘unsavory’ society where people live under threat of force or incarceration. They create a ever propagating negative situation in all aspects. Maybe that is what they intend, job security for cops, prosecutors, judges, law makers, probation officers, clerks, etc…

I would pay to see come of those Christians in an arena with lions–or kingpins–equally matched. This is classical looter collectivism–hyenas circling lest someone snatch away their prey (people and dope to shoot and money to spend). Most of the movies those victimless crime laws are based on were made by David Wark Griffith, the same fellow who produced Birth of a Nation–the Ku-Klux celebration of Woodrow Wilson’s election.

Put yourself in their place. You have this cop car, fancy gun, justifiably shoot someone and steal his dope. Now how are you going to sell the dope without a searchable network of users branded as criminals to help distribute it? If it were legal, and folks could just buy it elsewhere, it wouldn’t be worth killing for. Laws manufacturing crime out of victimless minding of own business are necessary to keep prices high and violence levels frightening. Without hobgoblins nobody would want to pay illiterate yahoos to run around with guns. Prohibition makes the initiation of force pay dividends to kill for.